Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Bodo Eggert]

Ukil a <ukil_a@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall
> implementation is very large will the scheduling and
> other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till
> the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by
> default the interrupts are disabled unless “sti” is
> called explicitly)?

According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call
with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion
by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag.
-- 
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Bodo Eggert wrote:

> Ukil a <ukil_a@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall
>> implementation is very large will the scheduling and
>> other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till
>> the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by
>> default the interrupts are disabled unless "sti" is
>> called explicitly)?
>
> According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call
> with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion
> by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag.
> --

Every interrupt software, or hardware, results in the branched
procedure being executed with the interrupts OFF. That's why
one of the first instructions in the kernel entry for a syscall
is 'sti' to turn them back on. Look at entry.S, line 182. This
occurs any time a trap occurs as well (Page 26-168, i486
Programmer's reference manual). FYI, this is helpful when
designing/debugging complex interrupt-service routines since
you can execute the interrupt with a software 'INT' instruction
(with the correct offset from the IRQ you are using). The software
doesn't 'know' where the interrupt came from, HW or SW.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:04 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> Every interrupt software, or hardware, results in the branched
> procedure being executed with the interrupts OFF. That's why
> one of the first instructions in the kernel entry for a syscall
> is 'sti' to turn them back on. Look at entry.S, line 182. This
> occurs any time a trap occurs as well (Page 26-168, i486
> Programmer's reference manual). FYI, this is helpful when
> designing/debugging complex interrupt-service routines since
> you can execute the interrupt with a software 'INT' instruction
> (with the correct offset from the IRQ you are using). The software
> doesn't 'know' where the interrupt came from, HW or SW.

I'm looking at 2.6.13-rc6-git1 line 182 of entry.S and I don't see it.
Must be a different kernel.

According to the documentation that I was looking at, a trap in x86 does
_not_ turn off interrupts.

In arch/i386/kernel/traps.c: trap_init

  set_system_gate(SYSCALL_VECTOR,&system_call);

(where SYSCALL_VECTOR is of course 0x80).

This sets up a trap:

static void __init set_system_gate(unsigned int n, void *addr)
{
	_set_gate(idt_table+n,15,3,addr,__KERNEL_CS);
}


since type 15 makes this a trap (3 gives it user access).  Also looking
at the code that it will call:

ENTRY(system_call)
        pushl %eax                      # save orig_eax
        SAVE_ALL
        GET_THREAD_INFO(%ebp)
                                        # system call tracing in operation
        /* Note, _TIF_SECCOMP is bit number 8, and so it needs testw and not testb */
        testw $(_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE|_TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT|_TIF_SECCOMP),TI_flags(%ebp)
        jnz syscall_trace_entry
        cmpl $(nr_syscalls), %eax
        jae syscall_badsys
syscall_call:
        call *sys_call_table(,%eax,4)
        movl %eax,EAX(%esp)             # store the return value
syscall_exit:
        cli                             # make sure we don't miss an interrupt
                                        # setting need_resched or sigpending
                                        # between sampling and the iret



I don't see a sti here.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On 8/11/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:04 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> > Every interrupt software, or hardware, results in the branched
> > procedure being executed with the interrupts OFF. That's why
> > one of the first instructions in the kernel entry for a syscall
> > is 'sti' to turn them back on. Look at entry.S, line 182. This
> > occurs any time a trap occurs as well (Page 26-168, i486
> > Programmer's reference manual). FYI, this is helpful when
> > designing/debugging complex interrupt-service routines since
> > you can execute the interrupt with a software 'INT' instruction
> > (with the correct offset from the IRQ you are using). The software
> > doesn't 'know' where the interrupt came from, HW or SW.
> 
> I'm looking at 2.6.13-rc6-git1 line 182 of entry.S and I don't see it.
> Must be a different kernel.
> 
> According to the documentation that I was looking at, a trap in x86 does
> _not_ turn off interrupts.
> 
...
> 
> I don't see a sti here.
> 
> -- Steve
 

He is RBJ, Richard B. Johnson, the LKML defacto official troll.

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 23:13 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> 
> He is RBJ, Richard B. Johnson, the LKML defacto official troll.
> 

Oh, so this is "root" who almost got DaveJ fired? :)

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:

> On 8/11/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:04 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>>> Every interrupt software, or hardware, results in the branched
>>> procedure being executed with the interrupts OFF. That's why
>>> one of the first instructions in the kernel entry for a syscall
>>> is 'sti' to turn them back on. Look at entry.S, line 182. This
>>> occurs any time a trap occurs as well (Page 26-168, i486
>>> Programmer's reference manual). FYI, this is helpful when
>>> designing/debugging complex interrupt-service routines since
>>> you can execute the interrupt with a software 'INT' instruction
>>> (with the correct offset from the IRQ you are using). The software
>>> doesn't 'know' where the interrupt came from, HW or SW.
>>
>> I'm looking at 2.6.13-rc6-git1 line 182 of entry.S and I don't see it.
>> Must be a different kernel.
>>
>> According to the documentation that I was looking at, a trap in x86 does
>> _not_ turn off interrupts.
>>
> ...
>>
>> I don't see a sti here.
>

Search for sysenter_entry. This is where the stack is switched
to the kernel stack. Then the code falls through past the
next label, sysenter_past_esp. The very next instruction
after the kernel stack has been set is 'sti'. Clear as day.

>
>> -- Steve
>
>
> He is RBJ, Richard B. Johnson, the LKML defacto official troll.
>
> --
> Coywolf Qi Hunt
> http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:28 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> 
> > On 8/11/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:04 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> >>> Every interrupt software, or hardware, results in the branched
> >>> procedure being executed with the interrupts OFF. That's why
> >>> one of the first instructions in the kernel entry for a syscall
> >>> is 'sti' to turn them back on. Look at entry.S, line 182. This
> >>> occurs any time a trap occurs as well (Page 26-168, i486
> >>> Programmer's reference manual). FYI, this is helpful when
> >>> designing/debugging complex interrupt-service routines since
> >>> you can execute the interrupt with a software 'INT' instruction
> >>> (with the correct offset from the IRQ you are using). The software
> >>> doesn't 'know' where the interrupt came from, HW or SW.
> >>
> >> I'm looking at 2.6.13-rc6-git1 line 182 of entry.S and I don't see it.
> >> Must be a different kernel.
> >>
> >> According to the documentation that I was looking at, a trap in x86 does
> >> _not_ turn off interrupts.
> >>
> > ...
> >>
> >> I don't see a sti here.
> >
> 
> Search for sysenter_entry. This is where the stack is switched
> to the kernel stack. Then the code falls through past the
> next label, sysenter_past_esp. The very next instruction
> after the kernel stack has been set is 'sti'. Clear as day.

I just applied the following to one of my kernels:

-- arch/i386/kernel/entry.S    (revision 274)
+++ arch/i386/kernel/entry.S    (working copy)
@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@
 ENTRY(sysenter_entry)
        movl TSS_sysenter_esp0(%esp),%esp
 sysenter_past_esp:
+       ud2
        sti
        pushl $(__USER_DS)
        pushl %ebp

And booted it.  The system is up and running, so I really don't think
that the sysenter_entry is used for system calls.  

Not so "Clear as day"!

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> And booted it.  The system is up and running, so I really don't think
> that the sysenter_entry is used for system calls.  
> 
> Not so "Clear as day"!

And so, looking into sysenter_entry, it seems that my configurations
don't seem to use it. This jumps straight to system_call without ever
having to turn interrupts on.

# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 8
model name      : Pentium III (Coppermine)
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 367.939
cache size      : 256 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 2
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
bogomips        : 722.94


-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > And booted it.  The system is up and running, so I really don't think
> > that the sysenter_entry is used for system calls.
> >
> > Not so "Clear as day"!
> 
> And so, looking into sysenter_entry, it seems that my configurations
> don't seem to use it. This jumps straight to system_call without ever
> having to turn interrupts on.
> 
> # cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor       : 0
> vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
> cpu family      : 6
> model           : 8
> model name      : Pentium III (Coppermine)
> stepping        : 3
> cpu MHz         : 367.939
> cache size      : 256 KB
> fdiv_bug        : no
> hlt_bug         : no
> f00f_bug        : no
> coma_bug        : no
> fpu             : yes
> fpu_exception   : yes
> cpuid level     : 2
> wp              : yes
> flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
> mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
> bogomips        : 722.94
> 
> 
> -- Steve
> 

The cpu does have sep. Is it vanilla kernel?

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On 8/12/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > And booted it.  The system is up and running, so I really don't think
> > > that the sysenter_entry is used for system calls.
> > >
> > > Not so "Clear as day"!
> >
> > And so, looking into sysenter_entry, it seems that my configurations
> > don't seem to use it. This jumps straight to system_call without ever
> > having to turn interrupts on.
> >
> > # cat /proc/cpuinfo
> > processor       : 0
> > vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
> > cpu family      : 6
> > model           : 8
> > model name      : Pentium III (Coppermine)
> > stepping        : 3
> > cpu MHz         : 367.939
> > cache size      : 256 KB
> > fdiv_bug        : no
> > hlt_bug         : no
> > f00f_bug        : no
> > coma_bug        : no
> > fpu             : yes
> > fpu_exception   : yes
> > cpuid level     : 2
> > wp              : yes
> > flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
> > mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
> > bogomips        : 722.94
> >
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> 
> The cpu does have sep. Is it vanilla kernel?
> 

Also glibc support.

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:

> On 8/12/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And booted it.  The system is up and running, so I really don't think
>>>> that the sysenter_entry is used for system calls.
>>>>
>>>> Not so "Clear as day"!
>>>
>>> And so, looking into sysenter_entry, it seems that my configurations
>>> don't seem to use it. This jumps straight to system_call without ever
>>> having to turn interrupts on.
>>>
>>> # cat /proc/cpuinfo
>>> processor       : 0
>>> vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
>>> cpu family      : 6
>>> model           : 8
>>> model name      : Pentium III (Coppermine)
>>> stepping        : 3
>>> cpu MHz         : 367.939
>>> cache size      : 256 KB
>>> fdiv_bug        : no
>>> hlt_bug         : no
>>> f00f_bug        : no
>>> coma_bug        : no
>>> fpu             : yes
>>> fpu_exception   : yes
>>> cpuid level     : 2
>>> wp              : yes
>>> flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
>>> mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
>>> bogomips        : 722.94
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Steve
>>>
>>
>> The cpu does have sep. Is it vanilla kernel?
>>
>
> Also glibc support.
>
> --
> Coywolf Qi Hunt
> http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/

Probably doesn't use int 0x80 at all.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:10 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:

> >>
> >
> > Also glibc support.
> >
> > --
> > Coywolf Qi Hunt
> > http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/
> 
> Probably doesn't use int 0x80 at all.

$ objdump -Dhalpr /lib/libc.so.6 | egrep 'int *\$0x80' | wc 
   448    2240   20160

And a little snapshot:

000288d0 <__libc_sigsuspend>:
   288d0:       55                      push   %ebp
   288d1:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
   288d3:       57                      push   %edi
   288d4:       56                      push   %esi
   288d5:       53                      push   %ebx
   288d6:       e8 00 00 00 00          call   288db <__libc_sigsuspend+0xb>
   288db:       5b                      pop    %ebx
   288dc:       81 c3 19 c7 0e 00       add    $0xec719,%ebx
   288e2:       8b 83 b4 32 00 00       mov    0x32b4(%ebx),%eax
   288e8:       85 c0                   test   %eax,%eax
   288ea:       75 23                   jne    2890f <__libc_sigsuspend+0x3f>
   288ec:       b9 08 00 00 00          mov    $0x8,%ecx
   288f1:       8b 55 08                mov    0x8(%ebp),%edx
   288f4:       87 d3                   xchg   %edx,%ebx
   288f6:       b8 b3 00 00 00          mov    $0xb3,%eax
   288fb:       cd 80                   int    $0x80
   288fd:       87 d3                   xchg   %edx,%ebx
   288ff:       89 c6                   mov    %eax,%esi
   28901:       3d 00 f0 ff ff          cmp    $0xfffff000,%eax
   28906:       77 33                   ja     2893b <__libc_sigsuspend+0x6b>
   28908:       89 f0                   mov    %esi,%eax
   2890a:       5b                      pop    %ebx
   2890b:       5e                      pop    %esi
   2890c:       5f                      pop    %edi
   2890d:       5d                      pop    %ebp
   2890e:       c3                      ret

288fb seems to use "int 0x80"  and so do all the other system calls that
I inspected.

$ ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 13 2005-08-09 22:28 /lib/libc.so.6 -> libc-2.3.5.so


-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 288fb seems to use "int 0x80"  and so do all the other system calls that
> I inspected.

I expect that if I had a Gentoo system that I compiled for my machine,
this would be different. But I suspect that Debian still wants to run on
my old Pentium 75MHz laptop.  How would libc know to use sysenter
instead of int 0x80.  It could do a test of the system, but would there
be an if statement for every system call then?   I guess that libc needs
to be compiled either to use it or not. Since there are still several
machines out there that don't have this feature, it would be safer to
not use it.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> 288fb seems to use "int 0x80"  and so do all the other system calls that
>> I inspected.
>
> I expect that if I had a Gentoo system that I compiled for my machine,
> this would be different. But I suspect that Debian still wants to run on
> my old Pentium 75MHz laptop.  How would libc know to use sysenter
> instead of int 0x80.  It could do a test of the system, but would there
> be an if statement for every system call then?   I guess that libc needs
> to be compiled either to use it or not. Since there are still several
> machines out there that don't have this feature, it would be safer to
> not use it.
>
> -- Steve
>

Well I have a small-C runtime library that I put together for
imbedded systems. Once somebody heard that I was using the
"obsolete" int 0x80, they insisted that I re-do everything to
use the new interface. Since I wasn't getting paid to think
on that project, I did what I was told. Bench-marks to 'getpid()'
showed the 0x80 interrupt faster by a few cycles so the "suits"
claimed that I must have done something wrong. So we had a
"code-review".

Finally it was decided; "The CPU must be handling things differently..."
i.e., go back to the simpler int 0x80 interface. It was obvious
to me that any difference in speed was simply noise. Both ways
are essentially the same for performance so I wouldn't lose
any sleep over an "older" 'C' runtime library.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Zachary Amsden]

Steven Rostedt wrote:

>I expect that if I had a Gentoo system that I compiled for my machine,
>this would be different. But I suspect that Debian still wants to run on
>my old Pentium 75MHz laptop.  How would libc know to use sysenter
>instead of int 0x80.  It could do a test of the system, but would there
>be an if statement for every system call then?   I guess that libc needs
>to be compiled either to use it or not. Since there are still several
>machines out there that don't have this feature, it would be safer to
>not use it.
>  
>

zach-dev2:~ $ ldd /bin/ls
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)

This is the vsyscall entry point, which gets linked by ld into all 
processes.  It is a kernel page which is visible to user space, and is 
rewritten to support sysenter if indeed that instruction is available.  
Glibc has fixed entry points to this page.  Here is a view of the system 
call entry point on a machine which supports sysenter:

(gdb) break _init
Breakpoint 1 at 0x8049522
(gdb) run
Starting program: /bin/ls
(no debugging symbols found)...[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 1075283616 (LWP 5328)]
[Switching to Thread 1075283616 (LWP 5328)]

Breakpoint 1, 0x08049522 in _init ()
(gdb) x/10i 0xffffe400
0xffffe400:     push   %ecx
0xffffe401:     push   %edx
0xffffe402:     push   %ebp
0xffffe403:     mov    %esp,%ebp
0xffffe405:     sysenter
0xffffe407:     nop   
0xffffe408:     nop   
0xffffe409:     nop   
0xffffe40a:     nop   
0xffffe40b:     nop   

On a machine that does not support sysenter, this will give you:

int $0x80
ret

The int $0x80 system calls are still fully supported by a sysenter 
capable kernel, since it must run older binaries and potentially support 
syscalls during early boot up before it is known that sysenter is supported.

Zach

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:59 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> 
> zach-dev2:~ $ ldd /bin/ls
>         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)

OHHH! So THAT is what linux-gate is used for! Thanks, I've been really
confused by that.

> 
> This is the vsyscall entry point, which gets linked by ld into all 
> processes.  It is a kernel page which is visible to user space, and is 
> rewritten to support sysenter if indeed that instruction is available.  
> Glibc has fixed entry points to this page.  Here is a view of the system 
> call entry point on a machine which supports sysenter:
> 
> (gdb) break _init
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x8049522
> (gdb) run
> Starting program: /bin/ls
> (no debugging symbols found)...[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> [New Thread 1075283616 (LWP 5328)]
> [Switching to Thread 1075283616 (LWP 5328)]
> 
> Breakpoint 1, 0x08049522 in _init ()
> (gdb) x/10i 0xffffe400
> 0xffffe400:     push   %ecx
> 0xffffe401:     push   %edx
> 0xffffe402:     push   %ebp
> 0xffffe403:     mov    %esp,%ebp
> 0xffffe405:     sysenter
> 0xffffe407:     nop   
> 0xffffe408:     nop   
> 0xffffe409:     nop   
> 0xffffe40a:     nop   
> 0xffffe40b:     nop   
> 

OK, I get the same on my machine.

> On a machine that does not support sysenter, this will give you:
> 
> int $0x80
> ret
> 
> The int $0x80 system calls are still fully supported by a sysenter 
> capable kernel, since it must run older binaries and potentially support 
> syscalls during early boot up before it is known that sysenter is supported.

Now is the latest glibc using this.  Since I put in a ud2 op in my
sysenter_entry code, which is not triggered, as well as an objdump of
libc.so shows a bunch of int 0x80 calls.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Zachary Amsden]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3564 bytes --]

Steven Rostedt wrote:

>OK, I get the same on my machine.
>
>  
>
>>On a machine that does not support sysenter, this will give you:
>>
>>int $0x80
>>ret
>>
>>The int $0x80 system calls are still fully supported by a sysenter 
>>capable kernel, since it must run older binaries and potentially support 
>>syscalls during early boot up before it is known that sysenter is supported.
>>    
>>
>
>Now is the latest glibc using this.  Since I put in a ud2 op in my
>sysenter_entry code, which is not triggered, as well as an objdump of
>  
>
>libc.so shows a bunch of int 0x80 calls.
>  
>

The NPTL version of glibc (the TLS library) uses this.

zach-dev2:~ $ ldd /bin/ls
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
        librt.so.1 => /lib/tls/librt.so.1 (0x4002e000)
        libacl.so.1 => /lib/libacl.so.1 (0x40038000)
        libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x4003e000)
-->    libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x4004c000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x40162000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
        libattr.so.1 => /lib/libattr.so.1 (0x40174000)

You'll find getpid much faster with TLS libraries (it's cached, no 
longer a system call):

With TLS:
zach-dev2:Micro-bench $ time ./getpid

real    0m0.080s
user    0m0.080s
sys     0m0.000s

Without TLS:
zach-dev:Micro-bench $ time ./getpid

real   0m5.041s
user   0m2.520s
sys    0m2.520s

If you're feeling really masochistic, I've added a demonstration of how 
you can call sysenter from userspace without glibc.  The code verifies 
that there is no way to exploit the kernel to achieve reading arbitrary 
memory through a non-flat data segment.  It deliberately segfaults at 
the end.  Let me point out this is a very wrong way to do things - you 
should always use the vsyscall page, and in fact, this code actually 
depends on the vsyscall page even if it is not apparent.  I fake the 
same frame structure that the vsyscall page would have pushed to 
simulate a vsyscall entry, but the kernel will always return to the 
vsyscall page, which then returns back to us.  Fun stuff.  If you leave 
the kernel hack for ud2 in your kernel, I would expect it to blow up in 
amazing fashion when running the code below.

zach-dev2:~ $ gcc sysenter.S sysenter.c -o sys
sysenter.c: In function `main':
sysenter.c:34: warning: passing arg 2 of `signal' from incompatible 
pointer type
sysenter.c:49: warning: passing arg 3 of `sysenter_call_2' makes pointer 
from in
teger without a cast
sysenter.c:22: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
zach-dev2:~ $ ./sys
interrupted %ebp = 0xbaadf00d
phew
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
zach-dev2:~ $ gdb sys core
GNU gdb 6.2.1
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain 
conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i586-suse-linux"...Using host libthread_db 
library "
/lib/tls/libthread_db.so.1".

Core was generated by `./sys'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.

warning: current_sos: Can't read pathname for load map: Input/output error

Reading symbols from /lib/tls/libc.so.6...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/tls/libc.so.6
Reading symbols from /lib/ld-linux.so.2...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/ld-linux.so.2
#0  0xffffe410 in ?? ()
(gdb) print $eax
$1 = -14
(gdb)

#define EFAULT          14      /* Bad address */


[-- Attachment #2: getpid.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 195 bytes --]

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  int j;
  for (j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) {
    getpid(); getpid(); getpid(); getpid(); getpid();
    getpid(); getpid(); getpid(); getpid(); getpid();
  }
}
  

[-- Attachment #3: sysenter.S --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 804 bytes --]

#include <sys/syscall.h>

.text
.global sysenter_call
.global sysenter_call_2

/* void sysenter_call(pid_t pid, int signo, short ds, void *addr) */

sysenter_call:
	push %ebx
	push %edi
	push %ebp
        push %ds
	movl %esp, %edi
	movl 20(%esp), %ebx   /* pid */
	movl 24(%esp), %ecx   /* signo */
	movl 28(%esp), %ds    /* exploit DS */
	movl 32(%esp), %ebp
	movl %ebp, %esp
        push $sysenter_return
	push %ecx
	push %edx
	subl $16, %ebp
	push $0xbaadf00d
	movl $SYS_kill, %eax
	sysenter

/* vsyscall page will ret to us here */
sysenter_return:
        mov %edi, %esp
	pop %ds
	pop %ebp
	pop %edi
	pop %ebx	
	ret

sysenter_call_2:
	push %ebx
	push %ebp
	movl 12(%esp), %ebx   /* pid */
	movl 16(%esp), %ecx   /* signo */
	movl 20(%esp), %ebp
	movl $SYS_kill, %eax
	sysenter

.data
test: .long 0 

[-- Attachment #4: sysenter.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1384 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <asm/ldt.h>
#include <asm/segment.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#define __KERNEL__
#include <asm/page.h>

extern void sysenter_call(pid_t pid, int signo, short ds, void *addr);
extern void sysenter_call_2(pid_t pid, int signo, void *addr);
void catch_sig(int signo, struct sigcontext ctx)
{
	__asm__ __volatile__("mov %0, %%ds" : : "r" (__USER_DS));
	printf("interrupted %%ebp = 0x%x\n", ctx.ebp);
	if (ctx.ebp == 0xbaadf00d)
		printf("phew\n");
}

void main(void)
{
	struct user_desc desc;
	short ds;
	unsigned long addr;
	unsigned *stack;
	unsigned long offset;

	stack = (unsigned *)mmap(0, 4096, PROT_EXEC|PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
				 MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
	stack = &stack[1024];
	addr = 0xf0000;
	offset = __PAGE_OFFSET-(unsigned)stack+addr+16;
	signal(SIGUSR1, catch_sig);
	desc.entry_number = 0;
	desc.base_addr = offset;
	desc.limit = 0xffffff;
	desc.seg_32bit = 1;
	desc.contents = MODIFY_LDT_CONTENTS_DATA;
	desc.read_exec_only = 0;
	desc.limit_in_pages = 1;
	desc.seg_not_present = 0;
	desc.useable = 1;
	if (modify_ldt(1, &desc, sizeof(desc)) != 0) {
		perror("modify_ldt");
	}
	ds = 0x7; /* TI | RPL 3 */
	sysenter_call(getpid(), SIGUSR1, ds, stack);
	sysenter_call_2(getpid(), SIGSTOP, __PAGE_OFFSET+4096);
	printf("not reached - core should show %%eax == -EFAULT\n");
}

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:58 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:

> If you're feeling really masochistic, I've added a demonstration of how 
> you can call sysenter from userspace without glibc. 

Thanks Zach, this will give me something to play around with when I have
a little more spare time >8-}

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Jan Engelhardt]

> zach-dev2:~ $ ldd /bin/ls
> linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
>
> This is the vsyscall entry point, which gets linked by ld into all processes.

Just a clarification... not GNU ld (the binutils thing), but /lib/ld-linux.so

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:10 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also glibc support.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Coywolf Qi Hunt
>>> http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/
>>
>> Probably doesn't use int 0x80 at all.
>
> $ objdump -Dhalpr /lib/libc.so.6 | egrep 'int *\$0x80' | wc
>   448    2240   20160
>
> And a little snapshot:
>
> 000288d0 <__libc_sigsuspend>:
>   288d0:       55                      push   %ebp
>   288d1:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
>   288d3:       57                      push   %edi
>   288d4:       56                      push   %esi
>   288d5:       53                      push   %ebx
>   288d6:       e8 00 00 00 00          call   288db <__libc_sigsuspend+0xb>
>   288db:       5b                      pop    %ebx
>   288dc:       81 c3 19 c7 0e 00       add    $0xec719,%ebx
>   288e2:       8b 83 b4 32 00 00       mov    0x32b4(%ebx),%eax
>   288e8:       85 c0                   test   %eax,%eax
>   288ea:       75 23                   jne    2890f <__libc_sigsuspend+0x3f>
>   288ec:       b9 08 00 00 00          mov    $0x8,%ecx
>   288f1:       8b 55 08                mov    0x8(%ebp),%edx
>   288f4:       87 d3                   xchg   %edx,%ebx
>   288f6:       b8 b3 00 00 00          mov    $0xb3,%eax
>   288fb:       cd 80                   int    $0x80
>   288fd:       87 d3                   xchg   %edx,%ebx
>   288ff:       89 c6                   mov    %eax,%esi
>   28901:       3d 00 f0 ff ff          cmp    $0xfffff000,%eax
>   28906:       77 33                   ja     2893b <__libc_sigsuspend+0x6b>
>   28908:       89 f0                   mov    %esi,%eax
>   2890a:       5b                      pop    %ebx
>   2890b:       5e                      pop    %esi
>   2890c:       5f                      pop    %edi
>   2890d:       5d                      pop    %ebp
>   2890e:       c3                      ret
>
> 288fb seems to use "int 0x80"  and so do all the other system calls that
> I inspected.
>
> $ ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
> lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 13 2005-08-09 22:28 /lib/libc.so.6 -> libc-2.3.5.so
>
>
> -- Steve
>

I was talking about the one who had the glibc support to use
the newer system-call entry (who's name can confuse).

You are looking at code that uses int 0x80. It's an interrupt,
therefore, in the kernel, once the stack is set up, interrupts
need to be (re)enabled.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:46 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:

> 
> I was talking about the one who had the glibc support to use
> the newer system-call entry (who's name can confuse).
> 
> You are looking at code that uses int 0x80. It's an interrupt,
> therefore, in the kernel, once the stack is set up, interrupts
> need to be (re)enabled.

int is a call to either an interrupt or exception procedure. 0x80 is
setup in Linux to be a trap and not an interrupt vector. So it does
_not_ turn off interrupts.

I'm looking at the sysenter code which is suppose to be the fast entry
into the system, and it looks like it is suppose to call the
sysenter_entry when used.  I'm trying to write something to test this
out, since I still have the ud2 op in my sysentry code. So if I do get
this to work, I can cause a bug.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:46 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
>>
>> I was talking about the one who had the glibc support to use
>> the newer system-call entry (who's name can confuse).
>>
>> You are looking at code that uses int 0x80. It's an interrupt,
>> therefore, in the kernel, once the stack is set up, interrupts
>> need to be (re)enabled.
>
> int is a call to either an interrupt or exception procedure. 0x80 is
> setup in Linux to be a trap and not an interrupt vector. So it does
> _not_ turn off interrupts.
>

I'm not sure you can stop the CPU from clearing the interrupt
bit in EFLAGS if you execute an interrupt. The interrupt handler
may be supported by a trap-gate, but the event has already
occurred. The documentation I have isn't clear on this at all.

> I'm looking at the sysenter code which is suppose to be the fast entry
> into the system, and it looks like it is suppose to call the
> sysenter_entry when used.  I'm trying to write something to test this
> out, since I still have the ud2 op in my sysentry code. So if I do get
> this to work, I can cause a bug.
>
> -- Steve
>

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:21 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:

> I'm not sure you can stop the CPU from clearing the interrupt
> bit in EFLAGS if you execute an interrupt. The interrupt handler
> may be supported by a trap-gate, but the event has already
> occurred. The documentation I have isn't clear on this at all.

>From the Intel document 25366513 "IA32 Intel Architecture's Software
Developer's Manual" Volume 1, page 145 (or 6-11) Section "Call and
Return Operation for Interrupt or Exception Handling Procedures".

A call to an interrupt or exception handler procedure is similar to a procedure call to another
protection level (see Section 6.3.6., "CALL and RET Operation Between Privilege Levels").
Here, the interrupt vector references one of two kinds of gates: an interrupt gate or a trap gate.
Interrupt and trap gates are similar to call gates in that they provide the following information:
·   access rights information
·   the segment selector for the code segment that contains the handler procedure
·   an offset into the code segment to the first instruction of the handler procedure
The difference between an interrupt gate and a trap gate is as follows. If an interrupt or exception
handler is called through an interrupt gate, the processor clears the interrupt enable (IF) flag in
the EFLAGS register to prevent subsequent interrupts from interfering with the execution of the
handler. When a handler is called through a trap gate, the state of the IF flag is not changed.


And in linux, the system call vector is handled with a trap gate, and
thus that is why the system_call in entry.S does not call sti. Although,
you are right, if I use sysenter, then it would call sysenter_entry
where it would need to enable interrupts again.

To prove my point.  All the libc syscalls seem to use "int 0x80", and
looking at the entry.S, it calls system_call directly.  Now to see what
sysenter would do I did the following changes:

Index: arch/i386/kernel/entry.S
===================================================================
--- arch/i386/kernel/entry.S    (revision 274)
+++ arch/i386/kernel/entry.S    (working copy)
@@ -196,6 +196,8 @@
  * Careful about security.
  */
        cmpl $__PAGE_OFFSET-3,%ebp
+       call sdr_func
+       jmp syscall_fault
        jae syscall_fault
 1:     movl (%ebp),%ebp
 .section __ex_table,"a"
Index: arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
===================================================================
--- arch/i386/kernel/traps.c    (revision 274)
+++ arch/i386/kernel/traps.c    (working copy)
@@ -1092,6 +1092,10 @@
 } while (0)


+void sdr_func(void)
+{
+       printk("hello from sdr_func\n");
+}


So my sysenter_entry in entry.S would call my function sdr_func which is
defined in traps.c as above.

Then I ran the following program:

int main()
{
        unsigned long a = 0x14;
        asm("push %%ecx;\npush %%edx;\nmov %%esp,%%ebp;\nsysenter"
                        ::"a"(a):"cx","dx","sp","bp");
        return 0;
}


And I did get my print in the console. So it seems that my system does
not use sysenter (even though the linux-gate.so seems to set this up),
but instead uses the "int 0x80", which in Linux does _not_ disable
interrupts.

I hope this clears things up for everyone. :-)

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:46 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I was talking about the one who had the glibc support to use
> > the newer system-call entry (who's name can confuse).
> > 
> > You are looking at code that uses int 0x80. It's an interrupt,
> > therefore, in the kernel, once the stack is set up, interrupts
> > need to be (re)enabled.
> 
> int is a call to either an interrupt or exception procedure. 0x80 is
> setup in Linux to be a trap and not an interrupt vector. So it does
> _not_ turn off interrupts.

It's actually a vector, that's all you can install in the IDT. Also a trap 
doesn't advance the instruction pointer, so you resume at the trapping 
instruction (e.g. vector 14/page fault), 0x80 is an interrupt gate. One 
of the distinguishing differences is that 0x80 may be entered via int 
0x80 from all ring levels. The reason why int 0x80 doesn't disable 
interrupts is because issuing int 0x80 directly is similar to doing a far 
call and therefore doesn't have the same effect as a real interrupt being 
issued.

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Bodo Eggert]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:46 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:

> > int is a call to either an interrupt or exception procedure. 0x80 is
> > setup in Linux to be a trap and not an interrupt vector. So it does
> > _not_ turn off interrupts.
> 
> It's actually a vector, that's all you can install in the IDT.

It's a vector + metadata, most noticably a privilege level and a
descriptor type.

http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigops/roll_your_own/i386/idt.html

-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
47. Say, What does "Superblock Error" mean, anyhow?

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 00:59 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge

> > The cpu does have sep. Is it vanilla kernel?
> > 

It's vanilla 2.6.12-rc3 + Ingo's RT V0.7.46-02-rs-0.4 + some of my own
customizations.  But I never touched the sysentry stuff and with a few
printks I see it is being initialized.

> 
> Also glibc support.
> 

I'm using Debian unstable with a recent (last week) update.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Jeff Carr]

On 08/11/2005 10:18 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> It's vanilla 2.6.12-rc3 + Ingo's RT V0.7.46-02-rs-0.4 + some of my own
> customizations.  But I never touched the sysentry stuff and with a few
> printks I see it is being initialized.
> 
>>Also glibc support.
> 
> I'm using Debian unstable with a recent (last week) update.
> 
> -- Steve

But are you using libc6-i686? That enables NPTL. Perhaps the behavior
difference is there? I'm surprised int 80 doesn't really cause an
interrupt; it doesn't jump to the appropriate place in the x86 vector
table? Interesting.

Jeff


root@jcarr:~# dpkg -s libc6-i686
...
 This set of libraries is optimized for i686 machines, and will only be
 used if you are running a 2.6 kernel on an i686 class CPU (check the
 output of `uname -m').  This includes Pentium Pro, Pentium II/III/IV,
 Celeron CPU's and similar class CPU's (including clones such as AMD
 Athlon/Opteron, VIA C3 Nehemiah, but not VIA C3 Ezla).
 .
 This package includes support for NPTL.
 .

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On 8/12/05, Jeff Carr <jcarr@linuxmachines.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2005 10:18 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > It's vanilla 2.6.12-rc3 + Ingo's RT V0.7.46-02-rs-0.4 + some of my own
> > customizations.  But I never touched the sysentry stuff and with a few
> > printks I see it is being initialized.
> >
> >>Also glibc support.
> >
> > I'm using Debian unstable with a recent (last week) update.
> >
> > -- Steve
> 
> But are you using libc6-i686? That enables NPTL. Perhaps the behavior
> difference is there? I'm surprised int 80 doesn't really cause an
> interrupt; it doesn't jump to the appropriate place in the x86 vector
> table? Interesting.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> root@jcarr:~# dpkg -s libc6-i686
> ...
>  This set of libraries is optimized for i686 machines, and will only be
>  used if you are running a 2.6 kernel on an i686 class CPU (check the
>  output of `uname -m').  This includes Pentium Pro, Pentium II/III/IV,
>  Celeron CPU's and similar class CPU's (including clones such as AMD
>  Athlon/Opteron, VIA C3 Nehemiah, but not VIA C3 Ezla).
>  .
>  This package includes support for NPTL.
>  .

Even with libc6-i686 installed, I can't see sysenter got used.
libc6-i686 has /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6, not the one
/lib/libc-2.3.5.so.

mozilla gets: Illegal instruction

I've added ud2 in both entry.S and vsyscall-sysenter.S.

Any ideas?

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 22:04 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:

> But are you using libc6-i686? That enables NPTL. Perhaps the behavior
> difference is there? I'm surprised int 80 doesn't really cause an
> interrupt; it doesn't jump to the appropriate place in the x86 vector
> table? Interesting.

int 80 does jump to the appropriate place in the vector table. In
arch/i386/kernel/traps.c: init_traps we have the line:

        set_system_gate(SYSCALL_VECTOR,&system_call);

Which sets up a trap gate in the vector table to jump to system_call
upon an "int 80", and this is exactly what I see.  It does not, however,
jump to sysenter_entry.  That would happen when sysenter is used instead
of "int 80".

When I use to work with a bunch of hardware folks, they would get mad at
me when I said a system call was initiated with an interrupt.  They
always told me that an interrupt was from an external source.  Anything
that the CPU causes itself (system call, page fault, etc) is called an
exception, or trap.  So I would try to use those definitions from then
on.  As a software guy though, I thought of them as the same thing.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 22:04 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:

> root@jcarr:~# dpkg -s libc6-i686
> ...

OK, this explains it :-)

# dpkg -s libc-i686
Package `libc-i686' is not installed and no info is available.

# dpkg -s libc6
Package: libc6
Status: install ok installed
Priority: required
Section: base
Installed-Size: 16336
Maintainer: GNU Libc Maintainers <debian-glibc@lists.debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: glibc
Version: 2.3.5-3
Replaces: ldso (<= 1.9.11-9), timezone, timezones, gconv-modules,
libtricks, libc6-bin, netkit-rpc, netbase (<< 4.0)
Provides: glibc-2.3.5-3
Suggests: locales, glibc-doc
Conflicts: strace (<< 4.0-0), libnss-db (<= 2.2-6.1.1), timezone,
timezones, gconv-modules, libtricks, libc6-doc, libc5 (<< 5.4.33-7),
libpthread0 (<< 0.7-10), libc6-bin, libwcsmbs, apt (<< 0.3.0),
libglib1.2 (<< 1.2.1-2), netkit-rpc, wine (<< 0.0.20031118-1),
cyrus-imapd (<< 1.5.19-15), initrd-tools (<< 0.1.79)
Description: GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone data
 Contains the standard libraries that are used by nearly all programs on
 the system. This package includes shared versions of the standard C
library
 and the standard math library, as well as many others.
 Timezone data is also included.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call
> with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion
> by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag.

I disagree with your definition of a system call.  The "int 0x80"
changes from user mode to kernel mode so it is much more powerful than a
"far call".  Also the CPU does protect against recursion and more than
one interrupt coming in at the same time. The PIC also works with the
CPU in this regard, but as I shown in my previous email, the interrupt
flag _does_ protect against it.

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Bodo Eggert]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:

> > According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call
> > with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion
> > by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag.
> 
> I disagree with your definition of a system call.  The "int 0x80"
> changes from user mode to kernel mode so it is much more powerful than a
> "far call".

Far calls and jumps can change to a inner ring. This is done by a special
segment selector containing the segment _and_ the offset to jump to (the
offset from the call instruction is ignored).

>  Also the CPU does protect against recursion and more than
> one interrupt coming in at the same time. The PIC also works with the
> CPU in this regard, but as I shown in my previous email, the interrupt
> flag _does_ protect against it.

Showing == claiming? However, my documentation was wrong.

http://www.baldwin.cx/386htm/INT.htm
-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
99. Shit!!

Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Ukil a]

I had this question. As per my understanding, in the
Linux system call implementation on x86 architecture
the call flows like this int 0x80 -> syscall ->
sys_call_vector(taken from the table)-> return from
interrupt service routine. 

Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall
implementation is very large will the scheduling and
other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till
the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by
default the interrupts are disabled unless “sti” is
called explicitly)? That’s appears to be too long for
the scheduling or other interrupts to be blocked? 
Am I missing something here?
    Thanks 
        Ukil

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 22:39 -0700, Ukil a wrote:
> I had this question. As per my understanding, in the
> Linux system call implementation on x86 architecture
> the call flows like this int 0x80 -> syscall ->
> sys_call_vector(taken from the table)-> return from
> interrupt service routine. 
> 
> Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall
> implementation is very large will the scheduling and
> other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till
> the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by
> default the interrupts are disabled unless “sti” is
> called explicitly)? That’s appears to be too long for
> the scheduling or other interrupts to be blocked? 
> Am I missing something here?

This is where interrupt is not a good term for syscall. It is really a
trap.  An interrupt is an outside source that stops the CPU from doing
what it was doing to go do something else (asynchronous event).  A trap
is something that the CPU calls on itself to do something else
(synchronous event).  So when a network packet comes in, the NIC sends
an interrupt request (request since the CPU may not immediately handle
it), and when the CPU is ready (interrupts on) it will stop what it is
doing and handle the network packet.

When you do a system call, it is a trap.  Quoting the Intel manual:

  The difference between an interrupt gate and a trap gate is as follows. If an interrupt or exception
  handler is called through an interrupt gate, the processor clears the interrupt enable (IF) flag in
  the EFLAGS register to prevent subsequent interrupts from interfering with the execution of the
  handler. When a handler is called through a trap gate, the state of the IF flag is not changed.


So when you go into the kernel through a trap (system call) interrupts
are still on if they were on to begin with, which is the case when
coming from user mode. But when you come into the kernel through a real
interrupt, then interrupts are off.

Also note that if you have preemption disabled, the system call will
_not_ do any scheduling unless it explicitly calls schedule.  If you
turn on voluntary preempt, it will call schedule at various spots in the
kernel that might call schedule anyway.  If you turn on full preemption,
then the process can be scheduled out anywhere in the kernel unless it
explicitly says it doesn't want to (preempt_disable or spin_lock).

-- Steve

Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall

[Zachary Amsden]

Ukil a wrote:

>I had this question. As per my understanding, in the
>Linux system call implementation on x86 architecture
>the call flows like this int 0x80 -> syscall ->
>sys_call_vector(taken from the table)-> return from
>interrupt service routine. 
>  
>

Almost. There are two entry points, the one you describe above, and the 
sysenter entry point.


>Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall
>implementation is very large will the scheduling and
>other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till
>the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by
>default the interrupts are disabled unless “sti” is
>called explicitly)? That’s appears to be too long for
>the scheduling or other interrupts to be blocked? 
>Am I missing something here?
>  
>

There are 3 types of gates you can use to service interrupts / faults on 
i386. Task gates are used where complex state changes are required, and 
an assured state is needed, such as doublefault and NMI handlers. 
Interrupt gates are used where interrupts must be disabled during 
initial processing, such as the page fault gate. Trap gates are used 
when interrupts may be allowed, and do not clear the interrupt flag.

On Linux, syscall vector int 0x80 is a trap gate, which means interrupts 
are not disabled. The sysenter handler is very special; SYSENTER does 
disable interrupts, so if you look at sysenter_entry, one of the first 
things it will do is re-enable interrupts as soon as the stack is sane. 
Thus, interrupts are enabled by default during system call processing 
unless explicitly disabled.

Your analysis of what would happen otherwise is quite correct.

Zach